The provisions of O. XV, R. 5, C. P. C. are discretionary and the court has the power to strike off the defence or not even if there is a default. The court must consider the circumstances of the particular case, including the nature of the default and the explanation offered for not complying with the provisions regarding deposit of the amount.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 26-10-1983 of the I Additional District Judge, Varanasi striking off the defence of the applicant No. 2 under O. XV, R. 5, C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE opposite party filed a suit for ejectment of the applicants from the house in dispute claiming that the applicant No. 2 had taken the house in question for the applicant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/ -. The applicants committed default in making payment of rent and, therefore, their tenancy was terminated and they were called upon to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the house after one month of the receipt of the notice. The applicants neither paid the rent nor vacated the house and as such she had to file the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the applicants from the house in dispute.

( 3 ) THE applicants filed a joint written statement in the suit. While the applicant No. 1 denied that she was tenant of the house the applicant No. 2 asserted that he had taken the house on rent and claim of the opposite party that he had taken it for the applicant No. 1 was incorrect. It was further stated by the applicant No. 2 that the house was let out to him by the opposite on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- which he has been paying to her regularly and he has committed no default. However, he deposited Rs. 520. 50 in the Court on 25-2-1978, the first date of hearing.

( 4 ) THE opposite party moved an application under O. XV, R. 5, C. P. C. for striking off the defence of the applicants on the ground that they failed to deposit the necessary amount in the Court on the first date of hearing and they also failed to pay rent for subsequent periods regularly.

( 5 ) THE learned I Additional District Judge while striking off the defence of applicant No. 2 observed that the applicant No. 1 will be at liberty to contest the claim of the opposite party to show that she is not the tenant and thus not liable to pay rent.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 7 ) FROM a reading of the order of the Court below it appears that the Court was under the impression that the provisions of O. 15, R. 5, C. P. C. are mandatory while it is now well-settled that these provisions are discretionary. Thus, in every case of default the Court is not obliged to strike off the defence. In other words even if there is a default the Court in its discretion may refuse to strike off the defence.

( 8 ) IN Bimal Chand Jain v. Gopal Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1657 the Supreme Court held-"sub-RULE (2) obliges the Court, before making an order for striking off the defence to consider any representation made by the defendant in that behalf. In other words, the defendant has been vested with a statutory right to make a representation to the Court against his defence being struck off. If a representation is made the Court must consider it on its merits, and then decide whether the defence should or should not be struck off. This is a right expressly vested in the defendant and enables him to show by bringing material on the record that he has not been guilty of the default alleged or if the default has occurred there is good reason for it. Now, it is not impossible that the record may contain such material already. In that event, can it be said that sub-rule. (1) obliges the Court to strike off the defence? We must remember that an order under sub-rule (1) striking off the defence is in the nature of a penalty. A serious responsibility rests on the Court in the matter and the power is not to be exercised mechanically. There is a reserve of discretion vested in the Court entitling it not to strike off defence if on the facts and circumstances already existing on the record it finds good reason for not doing so. It will always be a matter for the judgment of the Court to decide whether on the material before it, notwithstanding the absence of a representation under sub-rule (2), the defence should or should not be struck o